Complainant The Respondent passive holding over 15 years has unduly prevented the Complainant from registering it for lawful purposes relating to its own trademark related engagements B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant

registration followed by a passive holding of a domain name when there is no way in which it could be used legitimately can amount to use in bad faith B Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant contentions 6 Discussion and

constitutes impermissible passive holding Respondent has failed to carry its burden on this element of the Policy Respondent did not present evidence that he is a licensee or agent of Complainant that he is commonly known by the Disputed Domain

Domain Name resolves However passive holding of a Domain Name does not prevent the Panel from finding registration and use in bad faith The Panel further notes that Respondent undeveloped use of a website at the Domain Name which incorporates

FA 220042 FORUM Jan 28 2004 holding respondent s passive holding of the domain name constitutes bad faith and stating The Panel will not wait until the domain names have actually been used before finding bad faith because it is inconceivable that

under construction However passive holding does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith On the contrary passive holding can constitute use in bad faith as recognized in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

to an active website Such passive holding of the disputed domain name when coupled with other indications of bad faith may constitute use in bad faith under the Policy as found in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No

FA 220042 Forum Jan 28 2004 holding respondent s passive holding of the domain name constitutes bad faith and stating The Panel will not wait until the domain names have actually been used before finding bad faith because it is inconceivable that

the Examiner holds that passive holding or non-use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to Complainant s world widely well known trademark Star Alliance constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain

that the respondent s passive holding of the domain name satisfies the requirement of Paragraph4 a iii of the Policy See also Clerical Med Inv Group Ltd v Clericalmedical.com D2000-1228 WIPO Nov 28 2000 finding that merely holding an

is engaging in inactive holding of the disputed domain names iii Respondent registered and used the altria.site domain name in bad faith Respondent s inactive holding of the disputed domain names constitutes bad faith registration and use

of filing the Complaint was passively held Passive holding of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith registration and use see Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows supra The Panel also notes the default of the

line with UDRP precedent the passive holding of the disputed domain name isabel-marant.online does not prevent Respondent bad faith finding The Panel finds that such conducts constitutes bad faith registration and use 7 Decision For the foregoing

also states that the passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name with knowledge that it infringes on another party trademark rights is evidence of bad faith registration and use For the Complainant it could thus be inferred from the

�被投诉人被动持有 passive holding � � 5 � 事人双方主张 A 投诉人 投诉人主张争议域名与投诉人享有权利的商标相同或混淆�

the Disputed Domain Name is passively held does not prevent a finding of bad faith It has long been held in UDRP decisions that the passive holding of a domain name that incorporates a well-known trademark without a legitimate Internet purpose

de 2016 D2016 0187 auchan holding.com holding.net www.groupe auchan.com D2010 0494 Sanofi Aventis D2006 0303 holding.fr holding.eu D2008 0226 0281 D2000 0003 D2002 0787 D2009 0242 D2014 1636 D2012 0977 0545 auchan-holding com auchanholding net

domain name is therefore passively held by the Respondent The consensus view of UDRP panels is that passive holding does not prevent a finding of bad faith see paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 The Panel must examine all the circumstances

in which it was held that passive holding of a domain name with no usage or minimal usage can in certain circumstances constitute use in bad faith With certain of the criteria discussed in Telstra in mind the Panel concludes from the evidence

under certain circumstances passive holding may constitute use in bad faith Indeed as discussed in Telstra Corporation Limited v Nuclear Marshmallows WIPO Case No d2000-003 the relevant issue is not whether the Respondent is undertaking a